Some thoughts on the ‘jurisdiction’ question in the AOD – Voris/RCTV matter

January 9, 2012

Part One

Further to the “jurisdiction” questions being raised about two public statements made by the Archdiocese of Detroit concerning Michael Voris and Real Catholic TV, and with the same provisos in place regarding my earlier posts (here and here) on this matter, it seems to me that some people (a) are unaware that I addressed this question in my earlier blogs; or (b) know of my answer but don’t follow the point I made; or (c) know of and understand my answer, but disagree with it.

Group A, of course, I may simply refer to my original post.

For Group B, perhaps I can rephrase things this way: every time someone asks what “jurisdiction” the AOD has over Voris/RCTV to make the statements it made, they imply, without stating, that the AOD needs “jurisdiction” (however that is to be understood) in order to make the statements it has made. I reject that unstated assumption: the AOD does not need “jurisdiction” over Voris/RCTV in order to make the public statements it has made, most recently, that it “does not regard [Voris/RCTV] as being authorized to use the word ‘Catholic’ to identify or promote their public activities.” Indeed, as declarations of fact, the statements could have been made by anyone with adequate knowledge of the situation; had those persons direct responsibility for the welfare of the Church in their area, their statements would carry all the more weight. In any case, given that Voris resides there and that RCTV programming is produced there, coupled with the fact that AOD is frequently asked about Voris/RCTV, the right of the AOD to make the statements on them, is obvious, I think—this, without any need to find and prove “jurisdiction”.

Group C offers several variations on a theme, but I’ll address them jointly.

Let’s suppose, pro arguendo, that some canonical “jurisdiction” is, now or later, needed in order for the AOD to take cognizance of the activities of Voris/RCTV. Okay, well, the jurisdiction of the AOD over Voris, as an individual residing in the archdiocese, would be clear; most of the “jurisdiction” discussion so far, however, seems to be whether the AOD has jurisdiction over the internet project(s) called “RCTV”. It is claimed by some that RCTV is not owned (or controlled, or registered, or etc) by/to anyone residing in the AOD, and therefore, the AOD has no authority over it.

Notice, once again, however, that an implicit assumption is being made, namely, that ownership (or control or registration, etc.) of an internet operation is not just a basis for canonical jurisdiction over a cyber-undertaking, it is the sole basis for the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all others (save Rome, of course). That, folks, is quite a claim, and one not even expressly stated. But it’s there, subtly shaping an answer before the question is fully grasped.

Setting aside factual disputes over who exactly owns/controls what in this matter and where, may I ask, what canon do people propose as granting exclusive competence over an internet undertaking only to the ecclesiastical leadership in the territory in which the operation is, say, commercially registered? Absent such an exclusivist canon, however—one precluding canonical jurisdiction over internet operations to any diocese except that one wherein a human owner lives who registered the subject website—the argument being alleged against AOD jurisdiction fails.

Now, I’d be happy to save folks the trouble of looking for that canon, but some might not want to take my word that it’s not there. That’s fine; while they go look, I’ll just say that discussions about “canonical jurisdiction” (1) assume as necessary something that is, so far anyway, not necessary; (2) assume the accuracy and completeness of one version of the ownership-control aspect of this matter; (3) assume as being obviously settled by law some issues that are not expressly treated in the law; and (4) assume that canonical jurisdiction over an internet undertaking can be based only on the civil ownership/registration of a website, to the exclusion of any other factual or canonical basis for jurisdiction.

That’s four pretty big assumptions. In a row. None of which, as I have mentioned earlier, are going to be settled in blogosphere, but all of which suggests that this matter is more complex than some are making it out to be.

Part Two

Speaking of more complex, while the above should suffice to contextualize the “jurisdiction” challenges being raised so far, for the more speculatively inclined among my readers, let me add a few points.

Personally, I am open to canonical arguments (and they would necessarily be arguments by analogy, as the 1983 Code does not deal specifically with internet questions) whereby, say, registration of a web address by a human being residing in diocese X accords the ecclesiastical officials in diocese X some jurisdiction over the canonically relevant activities of that website and the persons associated with it. Open to, I say, not necessarily advocating for, at least not here.

But surely it’s not hard to see that construing such jurisdiction as being necessarily exclusive would be disastrous of good ecclesial order in regard to activities claiming the name “Catholic” on the internet. Consider: ownership of a website can be divided among several entities, it can be masked (not necessarily for nefarious reasons), it can changed almost at will, it can be re-registered across diocesan lines or across oceans, it need not be held directly by Catholics, or for that matter by human beings (at least not immediately). Even if, therefore, something as ephemeral as, say, a domain registration were found to confer a degree of jurisdiction over an undertaking regulated by canon law, making such a slender reed the sole and exclusive basis of canonical jurisdiction would be to surrender, in very short order, any effective ecclesiastical authority over certain undertakings by Catholics on the internet, no matter how much said activity impacted the welfare of the Church and the salvation of souls. Couple that with the fact that civil protection for the name “Catholic” is slim to none, and one sees that the interest of the Catholic Church in canonically protecting her name against being misappropriated on the internet, especially by those known to be her own sons and daughters, is quite high.

As the public begins to consider certain questions that some canonists have been thinking about for quite a while, let me just say for now that, although the Code of Canon Law came out before the internet was a pervasive fact of life and a powerful tool for the proclamation, or distortion, of the Gospel, that does not mean that canon law is bereft of ways to approach new jurisdictional matters. Canon law has dealt with novel questions of jurisdiction over many, many centuries. It has sophisticated jurisprudence for determining such things as personal and territorial jurisdiction, shared and exclusive competence, preemption, prorogation, and so on. And these questions, however rarified they might seem, are ultimately driven by the pastoral responsibilities of the Church.

Put another way, if the Church has an interest in what happens on the internet, then canon law has an interest in what happens on the internet. The task before us, then, is to apply those laws in such a way that, while respecting the rights of Catholics to share in the mission of the Church, we carefully preserve the freedom of the Church to proclaim as she decides best the Good News that Christ left in her care.

Here’s hoping these thoughts help make that goal clearer. + + +

To paraphrase Mark Twain, I didn’t have time to write a short post, so I wrote a long one instead. Sorry.

PS: some thoughts on related matters occur to me, but for now I must plead pressing prior commitments. I’ll try to return to them soon.

Gratianus: Iuris Pater Canonici

Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap.

Dr. Peters has held the Edmund Cdl. Szoka Chair at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit since 2005. He earned a J. D. from the Univ. of Missouri at Columbia (1982) and a J. C. D. from the Catholic Univ. of America (1991). In 2010, he was appointed a Referendary of the Apostolic Signatura by Pope Benedict XVI. For more infomation on Dr. Peters, see CanonLaw.Info.

Disclaimers and Acknowledgements

1. This blog represents my views and not necessarily those of other individuals or institutions with whom I might be associated.

2. I strive to present my opinions in a manner consistent with the values expressed in Canon 212 § 3, but final judgment on that rests with competent ecclesiastical authority.

3. In commenting on current events, I draw only on reports as they appear in publicly-available sources.

4. I fix obvious textual errors or infelicities of expression in my posts promptly (even if an email version has already gone out on it), but after a few hours, I either leave the text in place or clearly mark amendments as amendments.

5. Most translations of the 1983 Code are taken from the CLSA revised translation (1999, and largely available here); all translations of the 1917 Code are mine.

Christ among the Doctors

Hoffman (1926) shows lawyers in the four stages of their careers learning from the boy Jesus.

Would St. Thomas More blog?

I still haven’t made up my mind whether I shall publish it all. [S]ome people are so humorless, so uncharitable, and so absurdly wrong-headed, that one would probably do far better to relax and enjoy life than worry oneself to death trying to instruct or entertain a public which will only despise one’s efforts, or at least feel no gratitude for them. Most readers know nothing about [canon law] – many regard it with contempt [and] find everything heavy going that isn’t completely lowbrow. . . . Some are so grimly serious that they disapprove of all humor. . . Others come to different conclusions every time they stand up or sit down. . . . They seize upon your publications, as a wrestler seizes upon his opponent’s hair, and use them to drag you down, while they themselves remain quite invulnerable, because their barren pates are completely bald, so there’s nothing for you to get hold of. (Thomas More to Peter Gilles, 1516)

St. Raymond Penyfort, op (1175-1275)

St. Raymond composed the Quinque Libri Decretalium from 1231 to 1234. His text provided the organizing principles of canon law for nearly seven centuries until the promulgation of the Pio-Benedictine Code in 1917.

Hmm…

A political wag once remarked that the fastest way to start a ruckus on Capitol Hill was to point out what the Constitution actually says. It seems that something similar may be said about what happens in the Church when someone points out what the Code of Canon Law actually says.

Good advice from Cdl. Burke

The first thing I would tell a student of canon law is, canon law is not for the faint of heart !

More good advice from His Eminence:

“The too rapid growth of practice without a clear and solid theoretical foundation has its most serious consequences in the confusion regarding the very foundations of law”. Burke, Lack of discretion of judgment (1986) at 85.

Despite what others might say, I don’t

• know everything there is to know about canon law (although I know quite a lot);

• think every issue in the Church is canonical (although many more ecclesiastical issues are canonical, or can be usefully assessed from a canonical perspective, than most folks realize);

• have access to inside information (although I have been in Church work for some 35 years and have picked up a few things along the way);

• think bishops are always right (or always wrong, or are always anything, for that matter, except Successors to the Apostles);

• think Vatican II was the end of the Church (or that it was the greatest event since Pentecost);

• have authority to enforce canon law (although I write, in part, to encourage sound enforcement of, or compliance with, canon law by those under its authority);

• think the West is doomed (although it faces some tough times ahead and needs Christ more than ever).

Follow this blog via email

Besides the RSS and Twitter options above, you can follow this blog by Feedburner. Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Note that these e-mailed versions of my blog posts go out very quickly (indeed, it seems, instantaneously), but sometimes they contain typos or other obvious errors that I don't catch until I can see the posted version, as noted above (DA 4). I regard the versions posted here as representative of my thoughts.

Why comments aren’t enabled here

I have thought about enabling comboxes on my blog for some time. My reasons for declining at present are:

First, open comboxes are notorious occasions for grave sin (calumny, detraction, falsehood, even blasphemy). I won’t have it here, of course. But that leaves only monitored comboxes, and monitoring comboxes takes time—more time than I have and certainly more time than I wish to devote to, well, monitoring comboxes. Of course, if someone comes up with a way for me to get paid for monitoring comments, I’m open to reconsidering—my children are always screaming for more caviar and diamonds.

Second, the purpose of this blog is not primarily to air my, let alone others’, opinions (itself a legitimate purpose, of course) so much as it is to educate people on an important yet complex area of Christian life, namely, the operation of canon law. This is not to imply that I don’t express my opinions on various matters, even less is it to claim that everything I post is the only way to view XYZ, but rather, to underscore that most of what this blog does is explain the canonical aspects of issues in the news. I know of no other site in cyberspace that does that, and I think such a specific focus is a good thing.

Now the kind of education offered here can take place quite well, I think, without entertaining questions (questions that are often ill-formed and/or inappropriate for many others in my audience), and without entertaining comments (comments that, if right, would add little to what I already said, and if wrong, would often require considerable time for me correct). It seems better for all concerned if I just post what I think canon law or closely related disciplines say about this matter or that, include some appropriate references for folks to verify my sources, and leave it at that. Time will tell whether my analysis of various issues is, in the main, right or wrong.

Third—and mind, this comes from someone who often posts in others’ comboxes!—I find that combox discussions never really resolve anything; they are effectively interminable in that, no matter how thoroughly one might have answered a question or addressed an issue, there will always be one more bloke out there able to reword the matter in such a way as to suggest that it has not yet been adequately aired. And that is not counting the people who post as breand-new questions things that were expressly dealt with just a few posts higher up! Sheesh! Anyway, I grant that this could just be the lawyer in me talking, but I like it when judges rule (usually correctly) that X is irrelevant so drop it, or that Y has been asked-and-answered so move on, or that the burden of proof in case Z has been satisfied so the matter is closed. No one really performs that kind of service in any combox I've yet seen. Perhaps no one can.

Anyway these are some of the reasons why I haven’t enabled comboxes on this site. Perhaps another canonist will start a blog that does allow comboxes. If so, I’d be happy to go over and post comments there!

Best, edp.

Another hmm…

A professional knows the limits of his knowledge. An amateur does not know the limits of his knowledge. A dilettante does not know that there are any limits to his knowledge.

Ex aliis

• Sometimes I think Ed Peters is just using his knowledge to tell us things we don't already know.

• Peters is a perfect example of how celibate old men in the Vatican think.

• Huelga decir que el trabajo de Edward Peters es sumamente útil.

• A Protestant would never say things like what he says.

• Peters obviously has no idea what it costs to raise a child these days. True, but I have some idea as to what it costs to raise six.

• Il est un éminent canoniste Anglophone.

• I see people disagree with Peters, but they almost never have a reason, except they don't like what he said.